Army Reserve Components Personnel and Administration Center and AFGE Local 900 (Authority decision, November 23, 1982)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority resolves exceptions to an arbitral award under 5 U.S.C. § 7122. Judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1) generally does not extend to orders involving arbitral awards unless an order involves an unfair labor practice under § 7116. This order does not decide an unfair labor practice.

Plain-English summary

An Army Reserve employee declined overtime in her own data management section and then sought the same hours in the coding section. An arbitrator found that denying the second assignment complied with the parties’ overtime article and that no contrary past practice had been shown. The Authority found that the union’s exception only disputed those contract and factual conclusions. It denied the exception, leaving the award in place.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exception denied; arbitral award upheld.
• Key point: Disagreement over the arbitrator’s contract reading and past-practice finding did not establish a defect.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v10 p507 ]

10:0507(88)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

10 FLRA No. 88

U.S. ARMY RESERVE
COMPONENTS PERSONNEL
AND ADMINISTRATION CENTER
Activity

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
AFL-CIO, LOCAL 900
Union

Case No. O-AR-384

DECISION

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON AN EXCEPTION TO THE AWARD OF
ARBITRATOR GERALD COHEN FILED BY THE UNION UNDER SECTION 7122(A) OF THE
FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE) AND
PART 2425 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS. THE AGENCY FILED AN
OPPOSITION.

THE DISPUTE IN THIS MATTER CONCERNS THE DENIAL OF EIGHT HOURS OF
OVERTIME WORK TO THE GRIEVANT. THE GRIEVANT WAS EMPLOYED IN THE DATA
MANAGEMENT SECTION, AND ON THE DAY IN DISPUTE EIGHT HOURS OF OVERTIME
WERE AVAILABLE IN THE DATA MANAGEMENT SECTION, BUT REQUESTED THE
OVERTIME IN THE CODING SECTION. BECAUSE SHE HAD REFUSED THE OVERTIME IN
HER OWN SECTION, SHE WAS NOT PERMITTED TO WORK OVERTIME IN THE CODING
SECTION. A GRIEVANCE WAS FILED AND SUBMITTED TO ARBITRATION PROTESTING
THE DENIAL OF OVERTIME WORK.

THE ARBITRATOR STATED THE ISSUE TO BE WHETHER THE ACTIVITY VIOLATED
THE PARTIES' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. THE ARBITRATOR DETERMINED
THAT MANAGEMENT'S ACTIONS IN DENYING THE OVERTIME TO THE GRIEVANT WERE
FULLY CONSISTENT WITH ARTICLE XII OF THE AGREEMENT RELATING TO OVERTIME.
IN ADDITION, THE ARBITRATOR CONCLUDED THAT NO PAST PRACTICE IN FAVOR OF
THE GRIEVANT'S CLAIM HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED. ACCORDINGLY, AS HIS AWARD
THE ARBITRATOR DENIED THE GRIEVANCE.

IN ITS EXCEPTION THE UNION CONTENDS THAT THE ARBITRATOR FAILED TO
RESOLVE THE ISSUE SUBMITTED OF THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE
OVERTIME ARTICLE OF THE PARTIES' AGREEMENT AND ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT
A PAST PRACTICE IN FAVOR OF THE GRIEVANCE HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED.
HOWEVER, THE EXCEPTION DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE AWARD IS DEFICIENT.
AS NOTED, THE ARBITRATOR RESOLVED PRECISELY THE ISSUE OF THE
INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF ARTICLE XII OF THE AGREEMENT RELATING
TO OVERTIME WHEN HE EXPRESSLY DETERMINED THAT MANAGEMENT'S ACTIONS WERE
FULLY CONSISTENT WITH THAT PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT. FURTHERMORE,
DISAGREEMENT WITH THE ARBITRATOR'S REJECTION OF A CLAIMED PAST PRACTICE
PROVIDES NO BASIS FOR FINDING THE AWARD DEFICIENT. E.G., INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE, PHILADELPHIA REGIONAL OFFICE AND NATIONAL TREASURY
EMPLOYEES UNION, CHAPTER 22, 8 FLRA NO. 58(1982). ACCORDINGLY, THE
UNION'S EXCEPTION IS DENIED.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., NOVEMBER 23, 1982

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY